Evaluation of WRF-chem simulations of NO2 and CO from biomass burning over East Africa and its surrounding regions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In East Africa, biomass burning in the savanna region emits nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), carbon monoxide (CO), and aerosols among other species. These emissions are dangerous air pollutants which pose a health risk to the population. They also affect the radiation budget. Currently, limited academic research has been done to study their spatial and temporal distribution over this region by means of numerical modeling. This study therefore used the Weather Research and Forecasting model coupled with chemistry (WRF-chem) to simulate, for the first time, the distribution of NO 2 during the year 2012 and CO during the period June 2015 to May 2016 over this region. These periods had the highest atmospheric abundances of these species. The model’s performance was evaluated against satellite observations from the Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) and the Measurement of Pollution in the Troposphere (MOPITT). Three evaluation metrics were used, these were, the normalized mean bias (NMB), the root mean square error (RMSE) and Pearson’s correlation coefficient (R). Further, an attempt was made to reduce the bias shown by WRF-chem by applying a deep convolutional autoencoder (WRF-DCA) algorithm and linear scaling (WRF-LS). The results showed that WRF-chem simulated the seasonality of the gases but made below adequate estimates of the gas abundances. It overestimated NO 2 and underestimated CO throughout all the seasons. Overall, for NO 2 , WRF-chem had an average NMB of 3.51, RMSE of 2 × 10 15 molecules/cm 2 and R of 0.44 while for CO, it had an average NMB of − 0.063, RMSE of 0.65 × 10 18 molecules/cm 2 and R of 0.13. Furthermore, even though both WRF-DCA and WRF-LS successfully reduced the bias in WRF-chem’s NO 2 estimates, WRF-DCA had a superior performance compared to WRF-LS. It reduced the NMB by an average of 3.2 (90.2%). Finally, this study has shown that deep learning has a strong ability to improve the estimates of numerical models, and this can be a cue to incorporate this approach along other stages of the numerical modeling process.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".